82 So. 3d 1116
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Capo filed an unfair labor practice charge against his union and DCF on September 23, 2010.
- Capo alleged DCF dismissed him without just cause and the Union breached its duty of fair representation in processing the grievance.
- Capo alleged the Union failed to timely appeal the grievance to Step 3, leading to a denial of the grievance on May 3, 2010.
- Capo claimed the Union’s handling of the grievance constitutes a hybrid action baring timely filing under §447.503(6)(b).
- The Commission initially dismissed as untimely or deficient; Capo amended the charge and challenged the pre-March 21, 2010 events.
- The Commission found pre-March 21, 2010 events untimely, but later held post-March 21, 2010 events timely for evidentiary hearing; Capo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the six-month period begin in a hybrid action? | Capo argues period starts at final arbitration action May 3, 2010. | Union/Commission contend tolling under hybrid theory would unjustly extend time. | Six-month period begins May 3, 2010; timely upon hybrid accrual. |
| Is the hybrid claim subject to tolling until arbitration completes? | Hybrid action accrues at arbitration exhaustion; timely filing allowed. | Hybrid tolling would improperly extend the six-month limit. | Tolling not required; accrual upon arbitration adverse result. |
| May Capo pursue a hybrid claim based on union processing and employer discharge concurrently under NLRA model? | Hybrid action allowed under DelCostello and related federal law as to accrual. | Florida §447.503(6)(b) six-month clock governs; no extended tolling. | Hybrid action accrues when the grievance/arbitration is exhausted or breaks down to Capo’s disadvantage. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. (1983)) (hybrid action accrual framework under NLRA)
- Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 742 F.2d 612 (11th Cir. 1984) (discovery-based accrual principle for limitations period)
- Proudfoot v. Seafarer’s Int’l Union, 779 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1986) (timeliness measured from later of union’s final action or employer’s final action)
- Hayes v. Reynolds Metals Co., 769 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1985) (accrual when grievance procedure yields an unfavorable outcome)
- Ghartey v. St. John’s Queens Hosp., 869 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1989) (start of limitations when arbitration outcome adverse to employee)
- Childs v. Pennsylvania Fed’n Bhd. of Maint. Way Emps., 831 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1987) (premature hybrid filing avoided prior to arbitration completion)
- United Faculty of Fla. v. Pub. Employees Emp. Relations Comm’n, 898 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (statutory construction guiding state labor-relations framework)